Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs ReversingLabs comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Check Point CloudGuard WAF
Ranking in Application Security Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
51
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (9th)
ReversingLabs
Ranking in Application Security Tools
42nd
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (46th), Container Security (48th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (25th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (30th), Software Supply Chain Security (19th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is 0.5%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReversingLabs is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Check Point CloudGuard WAF0.5%
ReversingLabs0.5%
Other99.0%
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2751468 - PeerSpot reviewer
Assistant Manager at a computer software company with 201-500 employees
Robust threat protection improves security and operational efficiency
Areas where Check Point CloudGuard WAF can improve include simple policy tuning, as the protection seems strong, though initial rule tuning can be complex. More guided workflows or templates would help speed up deployment, along with deeper integration with the DevOps pipeline, and while it handles API well, more dedicated API security would add value. In addition, it could be improved with better integration with the DevOps pipeline, more granular reporting, as the dashboards provide good high-level visibility, but sometimes digging into specific attack patterns or trends requires manual effort, and simple tuning of the ML models would be beneficial.
TC
Forensic Lead, Global Security Fusion Center at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
Very good malware and goodware repository and enables us to look more deeply at indicators of compromise
The automated static analysis of malware is the most valuable feature. Its detection abilities are very good. It hits all of the different platforms out there, platforms that see the items in the wild. Also, the solution’s object and file analysis provide us with actionable insights. Its malware and goodware repository is very good. It's very robust. It gets all of the different repositories that are out there that do analysis and brings them under one roof where we can statically analyze for those indicators of compromise and look at them more deeply. If we need to go deeper into things, we can do that.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"With the introduction of AI in general, Check Point CloudGuard WAF provides very high accuracy on the data, allowing me to avoid a lot of false positives and saving me time in determining if what I'm seeing is a possible attack."
"The best feature of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is advanced threat prevention integrated with Check Point threat cloud intelligence, which provides real-time protection against web application attacks including zero-day threats, automatically receiving updates from the threat cloud and analyzing millions of indicators of compromise daily."
"The first valuable feature is that it is not a complex process to get it up and running. It was not complex at all. We were in a close relationship with the team that developed the app, and it worked in a few hours. The second valuable feature is the information that comes out of it."
"Overall, it's a good solution, and it fulfills all our core purposes, providing complete visibility and security."
"The communication between the on-premises device and the cloud for analysis and feedback is a valuable feature."
"It provides advanced analytics that gives each team time to prepare for any threat that might occur in the future."
"CloudGuard WAF has been great."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF works well for preemptively blocking Zero Day attacks and detecting hidden anomalies."
"As far as the malware repository is concerned, it's extensive. It's a good source for finding samples, where we are unable to find them on other channels or by leveraging other sources."
"As far as static analysis information is concerned, we use most of the information that is available in order to determine whether or not we might be dealing with a malware variant. This includes information that is related to Java rules. This is also related to malware families indicated or specific malicious software variants that are labeled by name."
"The automated static analysis of malware is the most valuable feature. Its detection abilities are very good. It hits all of the different platforms out there, platforms that see the items in the wild."
"It offers reports on a great many more file types than the other analysis solutions we have. It can give us a more in-depth analysis and better reporting on a larger number of file types. It also gives us a more comprehensive score on a number of things as well, and that's why we're using it as a front-end filter. It gives us more information... It's valuable because of its depth of information, as well as the breadth it gives us. There aren't a lot of tools that cover all of the different file types."
"ReversingLabs has a large sample size."
 

Cons

"Check Point CloudGuard WAF could be improved by simplifying the initial setup for a faster deployment, making the dashboard and reporting more customizable, and offering a more accessible pricing model."
"The learning curve was a challenge due to initially incorrect configurations."
"CloudGuard WAF could improve UI simplicity, reduce false positives, and enhance policy management."
"Support could be improved, particularly in terms of availability."
"The UI interface needs improvement because there are a number of bugs. Integration with the SIEM platform is currently one of the key challenges that need to be addressed."
"Pricing is high, although possibly justified by the service received."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security needs to improve updates on integrations. It also needs to incorporate real-time monitoring features."
"I have encountered issues with Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's technical support. It also has missing configuration features."
"The product support could be better at times. Sometimes, the resources that they provide could be of higher quality."
"I would like to see if we could do a little bit more of bulk uploading of hash sets. Right now, I can only do them individually."
"The solution needs to improve integrations."
"We would really like further integration with our threat intelligence platform, which is called ThreatConnect. We would also really like further integrations with an endpoint protection product we use called Tanium. The reason I mentioned both of these is that ReversingLabs claims to have extensive integrations with both of them, but they did not work for us."
"While the company is very helpful, it would be very much appreciated to have extensive proof of concept scripts for the different APIs available, though not for all the APIs that we have purchased. Respective scripts are available, but those scripts which are available are typically not of very high quality."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is competitive compared to other solutions on the market. So, the licensing cost is average."
"It is not cheap, but it is worth it."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."
"Considering all the benefits we've observed, we find the price to be satisfactory."
"The sales team or account managers from Check Point are top-notch. As I am using other products as well, my pricing was competitive compared to others."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is comparable to other products in the market."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is not friendly."
"The tool's licensing costs are yearly and competitive."
"Currently, the license number of lookups that we purchased has not been reached yet, because the integration has only recently been completed. However, our usage is expected and planned to increase over the next couple of months."
"We have a yearly contract based on the number of queries and malicious programs which can be processed."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Security Firm
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Insurance Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise19
Large Enterprise16
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about CloudGuard for Application Security?
We have not had any incidents. We could realize its benefits immediately. We watched and monitored the traffic, and it was amazing to see the results.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudGuard for Application Security?
The setup cost was taken with the head of the department, who handled the pricing and everything.
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
Currently, there is nothing in the areas of Check Point CloudGuard WAF that I would like to see improved or enhanced in the future. If there is anything in the roadmap, I would definitely like to t...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
ReversingLabs Titanium, ReversingLabs secure.software
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Financial services, healthcare, government, manufacturing, oil & gas, telecommunications, information technology
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. ReversingLabs and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.